Talk:Henry VII of England - Wikipedia

Template:Vital article

Request for inclusion of a link to the Council of Wales and the Marches at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. Such as:

Following Edward IV's example, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.

References can be found on the pages for Arthur, Prince of Wales and the Council of Wales and the Marches. Hughestoni (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please give the exact references from those pages you think are appropriate to the sentence you wish to add - otherwise we would just be guessing. Agricolae (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks& sorry not include sources - please include the following paragraph at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. (references from Arthur, Prince of Wales and Council of Wales and the Marches referring to the Council).

Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.^[1][2] Hughestoni (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced that it is an appropriate insertion as neither of the citations is about Henry VII. This is a biography of Henry VII and should contain the things that are normally in biographies of Henry VII. One of your citations is a biography of Arthur and the other is on 15th-century Wales. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please

Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.

^[1]

(Reference 1: Arthur (who died aged about 15) was Henry's son so Arthur did not create himself prince or create the council himself - Henry VII did so on his son's behalf. Does that therefore mean that Henry VII created the Council and it was something that he did as king? This is a valid reference given that Arthur was not of age and this was created by Henry himself). If you dislike this reference then please include the next instead.

^[2]

(Reference 2: This is an article on 'Wales and the Marches in the Fifteenth Century' and therefore covers Henry VII's reign, particularly pp. 163-65). If you dislike this reference given that Henry VII is not mentioned in the title then please include the next one instead.

^[3]

(Reference 3: This refers to the section in Chrimes's book on 'Policy towards Wales and Ireland' = Wales being pp. 245-57 but reference to Henry's creation of the Council of Wales being pp. 249 to 256.

If you dislike this reference then I can provide more as necessary - because Henry created the Council of Wales for his son Prince Arthur - I'm not inventing it - it's there in all the biographies so it should be included on this page). Hughestoni (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

No-one suggested you invented it. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Hughestoni: where exactly do you want to insert this?
SSSB (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the issue section, there is a doubt, if a Edward did exist by the looks of it, as it has possible confused with Edmund, yet Henry VIII called his two daughters Mary and Elizabeth despite desperately wanting a son, I can only think, he named both his daughters after his young sisters, so it would made sense, that he called his son by his young brother, who died, that Edward must have existed. PS I know that was long winded. Japhes5005 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Request for inclusion of a mention and link to the Council of Wales and the Marches at the end of the first paragraph of the section on 'Law Enforcement and the JPs'. (as requested 7 December 2020).

CURRENT PAGE:

Law enforcement and Justices of the Peace

Henry's principal problem was to restore royal authority in a realm recovering from the Wars of the Roses. There were too many powerful noblemen and, as a consequence of the system of so-called bastard feudalism, each had what amounted to private armies of indentured retainers (mercenaries masquerading as servants).^{[citation needed]}

He was content to allow the nobles their regional influence…

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Law enforcement and Justices of the Peace

Henry's principal problem was to restore royal authority in a realm recovering from the Wars of the Roses. There were too many powerful noblemen and, as a consequence of the system of so-called bastard feudalism, each had what amounted to private armies of indentured retainers (mercenaries masquerading as servants).^{[citation needed]} Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII created a Council of Wales and the Marches for his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, which was intended to govern Wales and the Marches, Cheshire and Cornwall.^[1][2][3]

He was content to allow the nobles their regional influence…

EXPLANATION:

Henry created the Council of Wales for his son Prince Arthur as part of the restoration of royal authority in Wales. Justification for the references is explained in my requests of 7, 8 and 10 December 2020, but if the ODNB for Prince Arthur and Griffiths on Wales in the Fifteenth Century are not good enough (suggested by Celia Homeford on 9 December) I include the page reference to the creation of the Council of Wales as stated in Chrimes’ biography of Henry VII. Hughestoni (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The "Rise to the throne" section ends with the statement "Richard III's death at Bosworth Field effectively ended the Wars of the Roses". This is highly debatable. There were still Yorkists out there and they continued to be a threat to the thrown into the reign of Henry VIII. Indeed for much of Henry VII's reign he was worried about potential claimants from the house of York, particularly those using Edward of Warwick as a figure head. Most of these did not result in actual fighting, but some did, notably in the early reign of Henry VII. generally the Stafford and Lovell rebellion of 1486 and the rising in favour of Lambert Simnel (a false Warwick) in 1487 are counted by modern historians as part of the Wars of the Roses. The latter was ultimately led by the leading male adult survivor of the House of York, and Richard III's designated heir, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln and was a serious military attempt to put a member of the House of York on the throne. Lincoln's death and the destruction of the Yorkist Army at the Battle of Stoke Field ultimately proved to be the last major battle between Yorkists and Tudor/Lancasterian force. The battle's article says that it "may be considered the last battle of the Wars of the Roses", while I would also note that the main Wars of the Roses article gives 16 June 1487 as the date of the Wars' conclusion (ie the date of the Battle of Stoke Field, not Bosworth). I would therefore suggest modifying the current text. Dunarc (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The infobox gives 22 August 1485 as the date of the start of his reign. While for all practical purposes this is correct as it is the date his army defeated and killed Richard III at Bosworth Field, but as it notes elsewhere in the article he legally dated his reign as starting on 21 August 1485. There was a good legal reason for this as it meant anyone fighting for Richard at Bosworth was guilty of treason as they were retrospectively fighting against their legal king. This meant that they had to be pardoned by Henry, giving him power over them, or in some cases, eg William Catesby, had a legal basis for executing them or (as in the case of The Earl of Surrey) a firmer legal basis for imprisoning them. Obviously the 21 August 1485 date is problematic as it was essentially legal fiction, but I wonder if it needs to be noted somehow in the infobox to avoid confusion? I would be grateful for others' thoughts on this. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Infoboxes just can't cope with this sort of thing, which is why they are so dreadful. The article should explain this, with refs, which it doesn't at present, but the infobox should just follow the main sources. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I will try at some point to fish out a good source and make the date issue clearer in the actual article. Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply